Api ebios rm operational scenarios retrieve

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds a real behavioral detail beyond annotations — related fields may be masked based on authorization — but it doesn't explain what masking means, which fields are affected, or whether the caller can detect masked values. That part is useful but under-specified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It front-loads the return shape ('a single object') before stating what is being retrieved, which is backwards for selection.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter retrieve with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description should at minimum name the resource and describe the identifier. The masking note is the only substantive content; the rest an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is one required 'id' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — no format, no indication of whether it is the operational scenario ID, a slug, or a reference ID. With low schema coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description says only 'Return a single object with unauthorized related fields masked.' It never identifies the resource as an EBIOS RM operational scenario, so it reads as a generic retrieve and relies entirely on the tool name. It does not distinguish this from sibling retrieves such as operational_scenarios_object_retrieve, operational_scenarios_list, or operational_scenarios_likelihood_retrieve.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling retrieval tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to prefer list/object/cascade variants, or what 'unauthorized' masking implies for callers. The agent must infer everything from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.